vaultpilot-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool builds an 'unsigned transaction', which implies this is a preparation step requiring subsequent signing and sending, but doesn't specify what happens next, error conditions, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks comprehensive behavioral context for a transaction preparation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise with just two sentences, both of which earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides essential usage guidance for the 'amount' parameter. There is zero wasted text.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a transaction preparation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (transaction data format), error handling, dependencies on other tools (like 'send_transaction'), or security considerations. The minimal description leaves significant gaps given the tool's complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 25% (only the 'amount' parameter has a description in the schema). The description adds crucial semantic information about the 'amount' parameter ('Pass "max" to withdraw the entire aToken balance'), which compensates significantly for the low schema coverage. However, it doesn't explain the semantics of 'wallet', 'chain', or 'asset' parameters beyond what the schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Build an unsigned Aave V3 withdraw transaction') and the resource involved (Aave V3). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'prepare_aave_borrow', 'prepare_aave_repay', and 'prepare_aave_supply' by specifying the withdraw operation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides some usage guidance by explaining how to withdraw the full balance ('Pass "max" to withdraw the entire aToken balance'), but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'prepare_compound_withdraw' or 'prepare_morpho_withdraw'. The context is implied rather than explicitly defined.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.